Around 600 years ago, the fire that became known as the Scientific Revolution was lit. It was driven by a profound change in how people interacted with their environment and it transformed their mindsets about themselves and the world.
In addition to this new way of “science thinking,” the Scientific Revolution birthed The Enlightenment. Thinkers began questioning the rule of monarchs and the Church; the genesis of many modern thoughts regarding individual rights and freedom and the proper roles of both government and religion can be found in this era.
For centuries until the Scientific Revolution, the medieval Catholic Church was the authority on everything — man, God, nature, the cosmos. All knowledge was effectively controlled by the Church. The education system of Europe was overseen — and in most cases managed — by the Church. Thus it was both the guarantor of academic freedom and arbitrator of its boundaries.
The individuals controlling the Church did not welcome the Scientific Revolution’s existential threat to their absolute power. The intense debate between science and religion caused some thinkers and leaders to begin questioning Church (and royal) authority. Both authorities reacted with fear to these new challenges.
Some scientists who criticized established Church science were brought before the Inquisition and charged with heresy. And some of these scientists were tortured and even executed.
The similarities between today’s liberal “science” and the medieval Catholic Church abound. Like the Church, the liberal establishment presents itself as the authority on everything — man, God, nature, the cosmos.
Today’s liberal science, too, has its “monarchs” whose rule and authority is granted by position, not proven ability, general consensus or scientific fact. It, too, controls the education systems and is absolute in its control of academic freedom and arbitrator of its boundaries.
Today’s liberal science, too, will broach no questioning of its absolute power and reacts with fear to any challenges to this position. Anyone who strays from establishment orthodoxy, especially those who were part of this liberal power structure, is in effect brought before the modern equivalent of the Inquisition and charged with heresy, tortured, and far too often figuratively executed.
I think Kayne West, Candace Owens, David Mamet and thousands of others can attest to this.
The conservative establishment is only marginally better. And the conservative establishment is perhaps only because it lacks the power of power of the liberal establishment.
Conservatives, too, react with fear to any challenges to their position, e.g. Donald Trump and the subsequent brawl to determine what it means to be “conservative” and who is anointed to make the call.
Both major political parties and their associated establishments operate in similar ways. Both see free thinking individuals as leading to an unacceptable questioning of their absolute authority on all knowledge. Logic and reason are a threat to their power since an Enlightenment 2.0 will show that neither party nor their overarching establishments are really needed all that much.
So we free citizens have a choice. Do we continue to submit to rule and thought control by our “betters” (the equivalent of the medieval church) or do we cast aside old ways of thinking and ignite a Scientific Revolution 2.0 and give birth to an even better Enlightenment?
John Conlin is an expert in organizational design and change. He is also founder and President of E.I.C. Enterprises, www.eicenterprises.org, a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to spreading the truth here and around the world, primarily through K-12 education.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.